Re: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Requirements: Handoff - 2
Hi, Dave
I agree with your viewpoint about the handoff between MBWA and other dissimilar technologies.
I think the handoff between MBWA and 3G may not be necessary; it is enough for requirement document
to specify the 802.20 systems has the ability to communicate to other dissimilar technologies. For example,
a user of 802.20 systems can speak to the user of CDMA2000 systems by the processing of the CN.
And If the handset supports the handoff between the MBWA and other dissimilar technologies, it will be very
complicated and expensive.
Best Regards,
Hao
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave James (OAK Global)" <djames@oak-global.com>
To: "'Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]'" <JHumbe01@sprintspectrum.com>; "'Michael Youssefmir'" <mike@arraycomm.com>; "'James Tomcik'" <jtomcik@qualcomm.com>
Cc: "'Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)'" <stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org>; "'Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG]'" <khurram.p.sheikh@mail.sprint.com>; "'Landon, Jim [GMG]'" <james.w.landon@mail.sprint.com>; "'Machamer, Doug L [GMG]'" <Douglas.L.Machamer@mail.sprint.com>; "'Mcginniss, Dave S [GMG]'" <david.s.mcginniss@mail.sprint.com>; "'Rausch, Walter F [GMG]'" <walter.f.rausch@mail.sprint.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 6:14 PM
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Requirements: Handoff - 2
>
> John, Mike:
> I agree 101% with these points (Mike's and John's). There was indeed
> reflector discussion on this before.
>
> Mike's second para. and John's second sentence say it all - as I also stated
> some while ago when this whole cul-de-sac area was first touted. I am quite
> closely involved in bus. dev. and related activities for various
> international markets where 802.20 systems could have use, and this whole HO
> issue for dissimilar technologies is clearly NOT IMHO an area where the
> rewards-to-risk & cost ratio make ANY sense whatsoever.
>
> I might feel a bit different when I can experience decent HO between
> SAME-system cellular mobile systems for VOICE in most countries ! ! And as
> for the like situation for data today around the world - forget it... As
> Mike states, dissimilar systems' voice HO today is a potential technological
> hurdle which would just add up to yet more complexity and expense that does
> not itself make sense, so why add further to the muddle with 802.20 ?
>
> What does make perfect sense is 802.20 / 802.11 HO - but we all know that.
> Thus WAN and LAN to give portable IP BWA ubiquitously. OEMs can package
> terminals (TSs) with different system technology mixes integrated, but that
> is quite different from mandating HO capability for permutations that are
> perhaps technologically feasible as tours-de-force but make no sense at all
> economically and have no great appeal at the user level.
>
> Best regards,
> Dave J
>
> OAK Global BV
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of
> Humbert, John J [NTWK SVCS]
> Sent: 28 October 2003 00:01
> To: Michael Youssefmir; James Tomcik
> Cc: Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail); Sheikh, Khurram P [GMG]; Landon, Jim
> [GMG]; Machamer, Doug L [GMG]; Mcginniss, Dave S [GMG]; Rausch, Walter F
> [GMG]
> Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Requirements: Handoff - 2
>
>
>
> I agree with Michael's comments.
>
> HO's between dissimilar technologies is best handled above layer 3.
>
> Jim,
>
> What was the outcome from the discussions on this topic a few months back?
>
>
> John J. Humbert
> 6220 Sprint Parkway
> Mailstop KSOPHD0504 - 5D276
> Overland Park, KS 66251-6118
> PCS (816) 210-9611
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-80220-requirements@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of
> Michael Youssefmir
> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 11:15 PM
> To: James Tomcik
> Cc: 'Stds-80220-Requirements (E-mail)'; Michael Youssefmir
> Subject: Re: stds-80220-requirements: 802.20 Requirements: Handoff - 2
>
>
> Jim,
>
> I strongly disagree with your line of reasoning below.
> The kind of interoperability you are suggesting would obviously be an
> enormous complication and I think we would need solid reasons for making
>
> such a course change. 802.20 is NOT targeted as an extension
> to any of the systems you mention below and so handoff to them is not
> relevant to our current goals. If it were any other
> way I think the PAR would have explicitly said so.
>
> Also, I think that 802.20 can stand alone as a successful network without
> the interoperability you mention below. If classical voice
> networks are anything to go by, I would say the market has spoken loud and
> clear on the need for such interoperability. For example, I know of
> no systems that support handoff between GSM and CDMA. Also I very much
> doubt we will be seeing the equivalent for 2.5G any time in the near
> future.
>
> Finally, I know that the current requirements document says that handoff to
> various 3G technologies was deleted for lack of contribution. However, I'd
> like to point out that this issue was discussed prior to our July meeting
> and an explicit decision was made to remove this section because it has
> little relevance to our current objectives. Again I will let the John
> Humbert make the call.
>
> See for example the following email from Dave McGinniss as we were preparing
> for the July meeting:
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 05:15:13PM -0500, Mcginniss, Dave S [GMG] wrote:
> > I do not believe that any of the following things belong in the
> > requirements document.
> >
> >
> >
> > 1 Handoff's to other technologies
> >
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 12:25:40PM -0700, James Tomcik wrote:
> >
> >
> > Attached is some text for the requirements document on handoff (802.20
> to
> > other systems). These sections were deleted because there was no
> > contributed requirement in this area.
> >
> > Rationale:
> > To support 3G service continuity and interworking with other deployed
> > systems, handoff support is essential to an efficiently operating
> 802.20
> > system. Since many emerging services are IP-based handoff support is
> > advocated for these. Because of the high-speed aspects of the 802.20
> air
> > interface, and the latencies involved with network level handoff,
> > mechanisms incorporated below the network layer are essential to
> service
> > continuity. For example, several handoffs per minute between a 3G
> system
> > and an 802.20 system may be required.
> >
> > Proposed to include the following:
> >
> > 4.4.x 3G Interworking and Handoff
> >
> > The Air Interface shall include handoff support with 3G systems below
> the
> > IP layer. Handoff mechanisms defined shall insure the uninterrupted
> flow
> > of data to and from the Mobile Station at rates up to 2 handoffs per
> > minute. 802.20 Mobile Stations and Base Stations shall support at
> minimum:
> > a. Handoff with cdma2000 1x systems
> > b. Handoff with WCDMA systems
> > c. Handoff with cdma 1xEV-DO (rev "0" and rev A) systems
> > d. Handoff with GSM/GPRS Systems
> > e. Handoff with EDGE Systems
> >
> >
> >
> > ==========================================================
> >
> > -=================================
> >
> ........................................................................
> ..........
> >
> > James D. Tomcik
> > QUALCOMM, Incorporated
> > (858) 658-3231 (Voice)
> > (619) 890-9537 (Cellular)
> > From: San Diego, CA
> > PGP: 5D0F 93A6 E99D 39D8 B024 0A9B 6361 ACE9 202C C780
> >
> ........................................................................
> ..........
>
>
>
>